Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/913,524

MEAT SUBSTITUTES PRODUCED IN PLANT-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 22, 2022
Examiner
YOO, HONG THI
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
337 granted / 739 resolved
-19.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
777
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Application Status Amended claim 40-44 and new claim 49 are under examination. Claim 1-39 and 45-48 are cancelled. Claim 40-44 and 49 are rejected. Withdrawn Rejections The objection set forth in previous office action over claim 40 and 41 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The 112, second paragraph rejection over claim 40-44 as set forth in previous office action, have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrljic et al. (US 2018/0027851). Regrading claim 40 and 44, Vrljic et al. (Vrljic) discloses a consumable product, a meat substitute comprising entirely plant-based proteins and fats (plant-based meat substitute (‘851, [0015], [0076]). Vrljic discloses the consumable product comprises isolated and purified protein, hemoprotein (‘851, [305]) obtained from plant, fungus (‘851, [308]) from transgenic plant cells (‘851, [0123], [0139] in media (slurry/cultured cell lines) (‘851, [0370]); wherein the isolated and purified protein, hemoprotein is also considered an yeast extract (‘851, [0112], [0123], [0129], [0139]). Vrljic discloses the consumable product comprising organic acids (‘851, [0172]); vitamins (‘851, [0108]); salts (‘851, [0022]); plant proteins (‘851, [0018]); sugar, sucrose (saccharide) (‘851, [0017]; plant fibers (‘851, [0152]); vegetable oil (‘851, [0018]; and emulsifier (‘851, [0017]). Vrljic discloses the consumable product, a meat substitute having organoleptic and physiochemical properties characteristics of meat products (‘851, [0089]-[0092], [0099]). With respect to new limitation “…further wherein said slurry of transgenic plant is derived from a plant cell powder…” in claim 40 and recitation of claim 44 with respect to the “plant cell powder…”, are directed to the plant cell powder which is an intermediate product, within the slurry of the claimed finished product; Vrljic’s transgenic plant cells (‘851, [0123], [0139] in the media (slurry/cultured cell lines) (‘851, [0370]) encompasses the limitation set forth in claim 40 and 44. Regarding claim 41, 42, and 43, Vrljic discloses the consumable product comprises the isolated and purified protein, hemoprotein (‘851, [305]) is hemoglobin, myoglobin (‘851, [0107], [0127], [0128]). With respect to claim 42 and 43, as Vrljic’s hemoglobin, myoglobin (‘851, [0107], [0127], [0128]) has been taught and meets the limitation as recited in claim 41, with respect to claim 42 and 43 with components listed as an alternative and never specifically claimed as being present then claims 42 and 43 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 41 with Vrljic’s hemoglobin, myoglobin (‘851, [0107], [0127], [0128]) being the taught element. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic et al. (US 2018/0027851). Regarding claim 49, Vrljic discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Vrljic discloses the plant isolated and purified protein, hemoprotein with an amino acid sequence set (‘851, [0130]-[0131]). Vrljic does not explicitly disclose a nucleic acid sequence having at least 90% homology as recited in claim 49. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust Vrljic’s isolated and purified protein, hemoprotein to express a nucleaic acid sequence having at least 90% homology since Vrljic clearly teach the plant hemo-containing proteins, myoglobin having at least 100% sequence identity (‘851, [0131]) with a heme-binding motif. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the new limitation “…further wherein said slurry of transgenic plant is derived from a plant cell powder…” in claim 40 and recitation of claim 44 with respect to the “plant cell powder…”, are directed to the plant cell powder which is an intermediate product, within the slurry of the claimed finished product; Vrljic’s transgenic plant cells (‘851, [0123], [0139] in the media (slurry/cultured cell lines) (‘851, [0370]) encompasses the limitation set forth in claim 40 and 44. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599266
AXIALLY OPERABLE BREWING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593856
REDUCED CALORIE BEVERAGE OR FOOD PRODUCT AND PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588686
METHOD FOR PRODUCING MODIFIED PEA PROTEIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568986
A METHOD OF REDUCING ACRYLAMIDE IN COFFEE EXTRACT AND A SOLUBLE COFFEE PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557826
PLANT-BASED MILK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+26.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 739 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month